The Sun recently reported that plans are in motion to reverse the roughly $3 million in renovations made to Frogmore Cottage, their former royal home in Windsor.

The makeover was initially funded by the Sovereign Grant, the taxpayer-backed fund that supports the royal family’s official duties. But after stepping back as senior royals in 2020, Harry, 41, and Meghan, 44, repaid the multimillion renovation bill in full.

PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN MARKLE’S ROYAL EXIT CAUSED ‘UNFORGIVABLE’ PAIN IN QUEEN ELIZABETH’S FINAL YEARS: EXPERT

“It’s been empty for three years,” a source told the outlet. “Even [former Prince] Andrew thought it wasn’t good enough for him to move in. Maybe if they get rid of any trace of Harry and Meghan, then someone within the royal household will fancy it. It would draw the line under Frogmore Cottage’s controversial history and return it to the pre-Meghan and Harry era.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment.

Multiple reports have said Frogmore was two semi-detached homes before Queen Elizabeth gave it to her grandson, Harry, and his bride, Meghan, as a wedding present. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex married in 2018.

WATCH: PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN MARKLE CAUSED QUEEN STRESS IN FINAL YEARS: AUTHOR

The Sussexes called Frogmore Cottage home from April 2019, following major renovations, until March 2020.

Royal biographer Ingrid Seward told People magazine that Frogmore Cottage was “pretty dilapidated” when the couple inherited it. The major refurbishment included upgrades to Frogmore’s heating, electrical, gas and water main systems, plus a redesign of the property that took about six months to complete, the outlet reported.

While some royal watchers see the reported plans as another sign the monarchy has permanently moved on from Harry and Meghan, others argue the proposal is simply a practical effort to repurpose a property that has sat vacant for years.

“This clearly signals that once someone departs from duty, there are permanent consequences,” British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital. “There is no reason to preserve anything from the Sussex chapter. Given all the damage to the royal family, particularly with the publication of ‘Spare,’ that chapter is better erased with this renovation.”

“The royals do everything deliberately,” said Fordwich. “In its original form, Frogmore could be repurposed for future use and remain flexible. Prince William has been adamant from the outset that there is no coming back for Harry. This renovation is a clear indication that his no-tolerance position is prevailing.”

However, British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard told Fox News Digital the situation is more complicated for the royals.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

“The Crown Estate is facing questions about royal leasing arrangements, and public debate over the family’s property portfolio has intensified,” Chard explained. “It’s hardly surprising there’s talk of undoing the renovations at Frogmore Cottage.”

“Frogmore Cottage is one of the properties under assessment,” she said. “The cottage has sat empty for years, and one option is that it could be split back into separate homes. The goal of the options being considered is to secure future occupancy.”

“Giving Frogmore Cottage, along with the other Crown Estate properties, a fresh purpose within the royal estate is a positive way forward. Also, it was Harry and Meghan’s decision to drop royal duties and relocate to the United States.”

“Their home is in Montecito, not Windsor,” Chard added.

Royal commentator Amanda Matta told Fox News Digital that the royals appear far more concerned with putting an empty home to good use than sending a pointed message that Harry and Meghan have been written out for good.

“One thing that often gets lost in the retelling of Frogmore Cottage’s initial renovation is that it wasn’t simply about creating a lavish dream home for Meghan and Harry,” said Matta. 

“A substantial part of the project involved consolidating multiple residential units into a single residence suitable for a senior royal family. If the Crown Estate or royal household now sees greater utility in returning the property to multiple units, that’s not necessarily undoing Harry and Meghan’s work so much as adapting the space to different needs.”

LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

“The most practical explanation is often the correct one,” said Matta. “I don’t see convincing evidence that this is an attempt to erase Harry and Meghan. The monarchy tends to treat royal residences as working assets, sometimes even leased to staff, rather than as displays of opulence. Homes are regularly reconfigured depending on who needs them and how they’re being used.”

“If there was a symbolic break between the Sussexes and the royal family, it is fair to say it happened when Harry and Meghan lost Frogmore Cottage as their U.K. residence,” said Matta. “But this redevelopment happening several years later feels more like the consequence of that decision than a new escalation of it.”

“We don’t know if King Charles is personally driving the decisions here, but those choices could still signal what the institution has decided about its future. Frogmore was originally intended to support the Sussexes as working members of the royal family. If it’s no longer needed for that purpose, that could signal how firmly the monarchy views that chapter as closed.”

Still, royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital that whispers are growing in the U.K. that any renovations could be intended as a pointed message to the Sussexes.

“Frogmore Cottage was the forever home for Harry and Meghan after they spent millions renovating the design to their tastes and needs,” said Turner. “The latest rumors that Frogmore could be restored to its original design are what we call a shot across the bows for the couple.”

“In my estimation, I feel there is a power struggle between Charles and William,” he said. “Charles, I feel, in his heart, wants Harry, Meghan and their children back together in England.”

Harry has been largely estranged from members of the royal family since he and his wife stepped back as senior royals. Still, Matta is hopeful that there could be peace talks between the monarch and his soon.

“I would never write off the possibility of an invitation to Balmoral or Sandringham,” said Matta. “I don’t think that door is closed, and the fate of Frogmore Cottage doesn’t necessarily play into that saga. One concerns private family ties at this point; the other is part of the institution’s literal framework.”

“I think the two concerns have been firmly separated,” she said. “King Charles can simultaneously be open to personal reconciliation while the monarchy makes clear that Harry and Meghan no longer occupy a working role within it.”

Eating processed meat like ham, sausage and bacon may be linked to a higher risk of certain types of cancer, according to new research.

While health organizations have already confirmed that processed meat can contribute to colon cancer, this study looked closer at cancers in the upper digestive tract, where the link has historically been less clear.

To understand these connections, researchers from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), one of the world’s largest long-term nutrition and cancer cohorts, tracked the health and diets of 450,112 people across Europe for an average of 14 years. 

FREQUENT HEARTBURN MAY BE A WARNING SIGN OF A MORE DANGEROUS CONDITION, DOCTOR SAYS

The study group included 131,426 men and 318,686 women, according to the study’s press release.

During the follow-up period, 876 people developed stomach cancer and 215 people developed esophageal adenocarcinoma, which is cancer of the tube connecting the mouth to the stomach.

Researchers tracked where the stomach cancers grew, separating them into the upper part of the stomach near the throat and the lower part of the stomach.

The researchers also sorted the tumors into two categories based on how the cancer cells appeared under a microscope: intestinal, which forms more organized structures, and diffuse, in which the cells are more scattered throughout the tissue.

BACTERIA IN YOUR MOUTH MAY TRAVEL TO THE GUT AND TRIGGER STOMACH CANCER, RESEARCH FINDS

After adjusting for other lifestyle factors, the researchers found that for every extra 30 grams of processed meat a person ate per day, their overall risk of stomach cancer went up by 9%. Eating that same extra 30 grams a day was also linked to a 13% higher risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

A standard single slice of regular deli-sliced ham or lunch meat averages around 28 grams, according to USDA data and nutritional tracking databases.

An extra 20 grams of white meat, such as chicken or turkey, was linked to a 12% higher risk of cancer in the main body of the stomach, the researchers noted.

The study also revealed differences between men and women. For male participants, only processed meat showed a clear, statistically significant link to a higher risk of stomach cancer. For female participants, however, eating both processed meat and white meat was linked to an increased risk.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

These findings align with global health benchmarks, particularly those established by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The agency has long classified processed meat as a known human carcinogen, primarily due to its strong, well-documented links to colorectal cancer.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

However, health organizations have also consistently pointed to a potential, yet less definitive, relationship between these meats and cancers of the stomach.

Further scientific investigation is needed to confirm the findings and to account for other underlying risk factors, such as certain stomach infections, which could interact with dietary habits.

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

A key limitation of the study is its reliance on self-reported diets, which can sometimes lead to inaccuracies in how participants recall their meat consumption over time, the researchers noted.

The findings were published in the International Journal of Cancer.

Fox News Digital reached out to the researchers requesting comment.

I live in Brussels.

Not the Brussels of postcards and European summits. The real one. The Brussels where Jewish schools sit behind armed guards, where synagogues are built like fortresses, where Jewish parents quietly tell their children to tuck the Star of David inside their shirts before they leave the house. 

I know what antisemitism looks like when it stops hiding. I have spent my life watching it return to a continent that swore it never would.

So let me ask the question no one seems willing to ask out loud:

Why can’t I, as a European who lives here and sees this every single day, look across the ocean and tell America exactly what is coming? Why can’t I warn you that the thing I am living through is already arriving at your door? And why should that warning be addressed only to Jewish leaders, when it concerns every single American who still believes this can’t happen here?

WESTERN LEADERS MUST CONFRONT ISLAMIST-INSPIRED ANTISEMITIC VIOLENCE BEFORE IT TARGETS EVERYONE

It can. It is. And I am not speaking only to the Jewish community. I am speaking to all of you — mayors, governors, senators, police chiefs, university presidents. Anyone with the authority to act and the temptation to look away.

Wake up.

In Europe, antisemitism did not come back wearing a swastika. It came back wrapped in slogans. It marched under the banner of justice. It called itself activism, and it dared anyone to object. And it did not arrive alone. It arrived alongside a violent extremism that European leaders spent 20 years insisting was a fringe — a misunderstanding, a problem that would dissolve on its own if only we were patient and tolerant enough. It was none of those things. It was a warning we refused to read, and we are paying for that refusal now.

We told ourselves we could manage it. We told ourselves it was someone else’s neighborhood, someone else’s children, someone else’s problem. We were wrong on every count.

Look at what a single weekend can now do to a great European capital. Look at Paris, where order collapsed overnight, where hundreds were arrested, where a mob laid siege to a police station in one of the most elegant districts in the world, where the Eiffel Tower itself shut its doors because the authorities could no longer promise the center would hold. 

The specific spark hardly matters. The lesson is always the same: a free, confident, modern city can lose command of its own streets faster than anyone in charge will admit. And when the streets are already lost, the Jews are always the first to feel it.

Americans watch these scenes the way you’d watch a storm over a distant sea. Terrible. Tragic. But far away. Foreign. Unrepeatable here.

SIGN UP FOR ANTISEMITISM EXPOSED NEWSLETTER

That is precisely what we told ourselves in Europe.

For generations, America was the opposite of this continent. A Jew could walk down any street in Brooklyn or Boca Raton without doing the math on his own safety. A child could wear a yarmulke to school without a parent’s stomach tightening. A synagogue did not have to look like a bunker. America was the place that proved it did not have to end the way Europe always seemed to end. That was not luck. It was a civic culture that treated Jew-hatred as disqualifying, not debatable.

That is the confidence now beginning to crack. And the people accelerating the crack are not a fringe in masks. They are winning arguments. They are shaping what counts as acceptable on campuses, in city councils, in the feeds where your children form their opinions. They are teaching a generation that some hatreds are sophisticated and forgivable and that the oldest hatred of all is simply one more political position.

When antisemitism is excused because it wears the right political colors, the danger spreads. When violent extremism is rationalized because confronting it is uncomfortable, the danger spreads. When the people in charge offer statements instead of standards, the danger spreads. And every extremist hears the same message we heard in Europe: no one is going to stop you.

I am not asking America to become afraid. Fear is what they want. I am asking America to become honest — while honesty still costs you almost nothing.

This is not about disagreement. Democracies are built to argue, and a healthy one argues fiercely. It is about whether a society confronts hatred consistently, even when the source is fashionable, even when the people spreading it claim the moral high ground, even when it would be easier to call it something gentler than what it is. That is the test Europe failed. The proof is on my street, in my city, in capitals across this continent, every single day.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

So here is my question to America’s leaders, and I want you to sit with it:

You can see what has happened here. I am telling you plainly, as a man who lives inside it. So knowing what Europe has become — knowing the guards, the fortress synagogues, the families who have already packed and gone — how could you possibly choose to let it happen there?

I am offering you what my own generation of leaders never got in time: a warning, delivered early, while the door is still open and the price of acting is still small.

Europe has already seen this movie. We know exactly how it ends.

America still has time to write a different one. But not much.

Do not wait until you need my experience to finally believe my warning.